Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 288 posts

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#221

Post by arcticbull »

542458 wrote: post #211
ashtonkem wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment they’re legally allowed to they will be all over legal weed. It’s not like the finance industry has any issues profiting from other recreational substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Agreed. Any suggestion that “the banks won’t deal with $GROUP even though they could be making money” is an allegation that the banks aren’t actually very profit-motivated. This allegation seems unlikely to me. As far as I can tell, the stuff the banks won’t touch is either legally risky (weed) or financially risky.

The financially risky stuff they're usually willing to take on too, but the folks providing the service usually find the associated interchange fees unreasonable.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#222

Post by arcticbull »

Spivak wrote: post #197
tantalor wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no US law against that.

Yeah, there’s a big difference between “dudes with guns will throw me in prison for this” and “as a company we cannot in good conscience contribute to xxx.” Banks and CC companies by usual standards are staying out of things more than average. If it’s not a risk to their liberty or wallets the financial sector is happy to stand back and watch all sorts of awful things.

And frankly, I don't want them to project their own morality on my transactions any more than I want Comcast to. It's the job of legislators to decide what is and isn't legal. This is just financial infrastructure.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#223

Post by gamacodre »

jstanley wrote: post #101
spottybanana wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen sites start heavily censoring themselves because someone complained to Google and they pulled the ads. Stuff like this ruins the web. You mean my web is ruined because I don't see more those ads selling the newest crypto ponzi scheme which promises 10000% yearly returns? Let's deal with it, if advertising was totally uncensored that would be a nightmare for average user.

More like your web is ruined because the site that tries to write about some controversial topic has to stay less controversial else they can't make money by showing ads.

This bugs the crap out of me, it sounds like "waaaahhh I can't rake in ad money being a provocateur". So deal with it. Get a day job. Accept that large chunks of society will hate you (that's the goal anyway, right?) and that your business won't be welcome.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#224

Post by nobody9999 »

Isinlor wrote: post #8

I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it.

>If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it.

Right. But banks are regulated by the US Federal government. And according to US federal law[0], possessing and selling cannabis is just as illegal as possessing and selling methamphetamine or heroin.

As such, unless and until that changes, the banks aren't going to involve themselves in what the US Federal government deems a felony, regardless of what the several states do.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#225

Post by webspinner »

OK so back in 2012, I donated to a site that was on everyone's bad list at the time. I had my bank flag my account after that. Not only that, but they texted my mother to inform her of the fraud alert/flag. Eventually, I called them and told them to quit it. It took a weekend to clear it all up. this has been going on since November/December 2010, actually.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#226

Post by pvarangot »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #210
Swizec wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California they charge your debit card and return cash change. They even overcharge your card to ensure there is cash to give back. $5 or so. This turns it into an ATM withdrawal apparently.

And the really nice thing about this is that there are no fees. If I just need $80 or so (I think the limit is $100), it's faster to go to the local Walmart and buy a candy bar or something and get back $80 cash than to go the closest ATM owned by my bank to avoid the double dipping fees.

Yeah it makes sense there are no fees for cash back. Walmart doesn't want cash, they want to get rid of it as soon as possible.

The ATM has to be actually refilled with cash, so they charge you for it.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#227

Post by cronix »

some_random wrote: post #175
cletus wrote: post #130

I don't think they're that reluctant, honestly. But it goes beyond credit card companies too. It applies to the whole banking system. It will soon be the case where the majority of Americans live in states where recreational cannabis is legal (it was ~1 in 3 last year but NY, NJ and others will push it over). Yet you can't use a credit card to buy cannabis pretty much anywhere AFAIK. Worse, dispensaries have to opera…

>It will soon be the case where the majority of Americans live in states where recreational cannabis is legal (it was ~1 in 3 last year but NY, NJ and others will push it over). Yet you can't use a credit card to buy cannabis pretty much anywhere AFAIK. There is not a single state where cannabis is legal, there are only states that have decided they won't enforce federal law.

> There is not a single state where cannabis is legal, there are only states that have decided they won't enforce federal law.

The feds don't really enforce it either. Is there a state the feds have sanctioned over legalization? They even collect federal tax dollars on the businesses selling these "illegal" products. Unless a law is actually enforced, it's just words on paper.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#228

Post by Arrath »

ashtonkem wrote: post #208
jonas21 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Granted, the legality of cannabis is a grey area since states allow it but the Federal government still maintains it as illegal. This isn't some incidental detail - it's the entire reason why the banking and credit card industry doesn't want to interact with cannabis right now. Guess who regulates the banking industry and has authority over interstate commerce? The federal government. This particular example has no…

The moment they’re legally allowed to they will be all over legal weed. It’s not like the finance industry has any issues profiting from other recreational substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Absolutely.

My last employer was just as happy to bid on jobs building grow ops as they were solar farms, all while maintaining the insurance mandated drug testing policy.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#229

Post by kroltan »

jaywalk wrote: post #202
franga2000 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How credit card processing hasn't been classified and regulated as a utility is truly baffling to me. Especially with governments explicitly recommending contactless card payments instead of cash during the pandemic and many doing things like taking large bank notes out of circulation for years now. We don't need crazy things like crypto - we need decentralised and accountable banks and payment processors (not that t…

>Speaking of credit card companies: why do they exist?? Why can't my card just sign a digital request for transfer and tell the POS terminal to send it to my bank to be executed. Because the POS terminal (or more likely, the payment processor) would have to work with thousands of individual banks. The credit card companies handle that complexity so that payment processors only have to integrate with a handful of cred…

That's because there is no open standard for it, which is mentioned in the following sentence.

> A room of computer science students could write an open standard for that in like a month and have a working implementation within the year.

(While I don't share the optimism regarding the timeframe, I agree with the general sentiment)

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#230

Post by throwaway0a5e »

542458 wrote: post #211
ashtonkem wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment they’re legally allowed to they will be all over legal weed. It’s not like the finance industry has any issues profiting from other recreational substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Agreed. Any suggestion that “the banks won’t deal with $GROUP even though they could be making money” is an allegation that the banks aren’t actually very profit-motivated. This allegation seems unlikely to me. As far as I can tell, the stuff the banks won’t touch is either legally risky (weed) or financially risky.

So they why do payment processors (paypal in particular) avoid firearms stuff? That's big business and the consumers involved pretty much all have discretionary income by definition. You'd think they'd be all over that.
Post reply on HN